From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72575 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2015 13:43:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 72554 invoked by uid 89); 24 Sep 2015 13:43:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:43:44 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t8ODhedR008955; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:43:40 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id t8ODhe2b008954; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 08:43:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:06:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Bernd Schmidt Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] bb-reorder: Add -freorder-blocks-algorithm= and wire it up Message-ID: <20150924134339.GC20466@gate.crashing.org> References: <5603D038.9060006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5603D038.9060006@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg01862.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:28:08PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 09/24/2015 12:06 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >This adds an -freorder-blocks-algorithm=[simple|stc] flag, with "simple" > >as default. For -O2 and up (except -Os) it is switched to "stc" instead. > >Targets that never want STC can override this. This changes > >-freorder-blocks > >to be on at -O1 and up (was -O2 and up). > > > >In effect, the changes are for -O1 (which now gets "simple" instead of > >nothing), -Os (which now gets "simple" instead of "stc", since STC results > >in much bigger code), and for targets that wish to never use STC (not in > >this patch though). > > This should be merged with its documentation in 4/4, and personally I'd > have no problem reviewing a patch with 2/3/4 all in one. Splitting > patches is most helpful if there are parts that rearrange things such as > your 1/4, or if there are multiple independent functional changes. I'm > not saying you did anything wrong by splitting, just that maybe you made > unnecessary work for yourself. I had the patches like that in my git tree, so I figured I'd send it like that, makes review slightly easier (not a big deal for small patches like this of course). I did not waste time splitting things up, don't worry :-) Segher